search results matching tag: Astrology

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (36)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (5)     Comments (147)   

Should We Believe In Astrology ?

Racism Is Way Better Than Astrology - Dara Ó Briain

Should We Believe In Astrology ?

Astrology Venus Retrograde~Goddess of Love, Money & Beauty

Porn Actress Mercedes Carrera LOSES IT With Modern Feminists

ChaosEngine says...

I don't give a shit if a homeopath or an astrologer or a climate denier or any other nutjob you care to name disables comments on youtube. It's simply not a meaningful channel for debate. There are other, better channels.

There's no one claiming to represent everyone who uses the internet saying that online harassment is ok.

But those GG assholes claim to represent "gamers", and no, it's not even slightly about ethics in journalism. It is, in fact, the complete opposite. This is a group that called on Nintendo to withdraw support from reviewers who were critical of Bayonetta.

The fucking hypocrisy is mind blowing. Seriously, think about it. A group that is supposed to be anti-censorship and pro-consumer told one of the biggest names in the industry to boycott a publication because it criticized their product. It is to Nintendos credit that they ignored these assholes who can't understand the difference between critique and censorship.

There isn't some balanced 3rd party POV on GG. Those people are fucking troglodytes, and the sooner they're consigned to the dustbin of history the better.

And yes, of course, I'm ashamed to be part of society sometimes.

I'm not a WASP, but I am Irish and I'm deeply ashamed of some of the racist bullshit associated with my country. I was raised Catholic. Take a wild guess about how I feel about that.

The "gamers are dead" thing has been completely misinterpreted. Did you even read the source article? It's saying that the target market for games isn't "gamers", but just people. Stop marketing to a fictional teenage boy demographic.

And quite frankly, I'm considering buying a t-shirt that says SJW. How the fuck did advocating social justice become a pejorative?

GenjiKilpatrick said:

Online Harassment - been apart of the internet since chatrooms were available.

Are you ashamed of being an "internet-er" too?

Slut Shaming - been apart of society since clothes were invented.

Are you ashamed to being part of society?

Gamergate is specifically about game "journalists" and reviewers being bribed for positive reviews & articles.

Full stop. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I'm feel sorry for you or any other male "gamer" who attaches part of their indentity to the 4chan trolls who blew this entire thing out of focus.

And not for nothing. But the shit coming out of the mouths of Anti-GGers, SJWs, modern feminists, whatever..

It's JUST as batshit crazy, abusive, threatening, demeaning, belittling as the 4chan trolls & their bandwagon.

Saying "gamers are dead". They're all greasy basement-dwelling neckbearded 30 yr old virgin pig losers who should be exterminated..

isn't exactly becoming of polite, civil, "adult" discourse.

If anything, feel embarrassed to be a WASP because.. seriously, history.

I'll stop right there tho, before i cause another shitstorm.

Our Women Should Not Be Allowed to Drive Lest They Get Raped

gorillaman says...

So, we agree that since to be a muslim requires the absence of consistent, rational thought, then muslims are necessarily intellectually inferior to humans. Obviously that implies moral inferiority also, which is what I posted originally. It's nice to build consensus.

Humanity is defined by intellect. It's the distinguishing characteristic of our species, and when it's lacking, as it so often is, then the result is something literally sub-human.

It can be an amusing distraction to map out the ramifications of preposterous belief systems, and alright I'm guilty of that, I admit it. Actually, stupidity is stupidity. Tyrant, astrologer, anti-vaxxer or just some sad little idiot pointing its carpet at mecca and dutifully reciting its prayers, they're all the same to me; I hate them all and I want them all dead. Stupidity is no small crime; it's no less than the ultimate source of all the evil in the world.

The moral gap between stupidity and the consequences of stupidity is non-existent. What real difference is there between the merely hypocritical and the genocidal, beside the opportunities they had to inflict their defective thinking on the world?

ChaosEngine said:

What a load of horseshit.

I have no intention of arguing that Mohammed was anything other than a terrible human being.

But to say that all Muslims are guilty of mass rape or genocide is so patently absurd it's barely worth rebutting.

Are they guilty of cognitive dissonance? Hell yeah.

I've argued in the past that almost all members of religions are hypocrites; either you believe your religion is divine and therefore, infallible, or you're just making up your own morality and therefore tacitly acknowledging your religion is a flawed man-made thing.

But since the alternative is insane fanatical fundamentalism, I can forgive a little hypocrisy.

The moral gap between hypocrisy and mass rape or genocide is pretty fucking substantial. If you can't or won't understand that, then you're looking at the world in terms of absolutes and little better than a fanatic yourself.

Oh, and ordinarily, I would take this as given, but just in case you really are that simple, I think mass rape and genocide are Bad Things.

Do not rape people. Do not murder people. Especially do not do this to lots of people.

Clear?

Neil deGrasse Tyson - "Do You Believe in God?"

BicycleRepairMan says...

"you appear,and please correct me if i am wrong,to pigeon hole anybody who claims a religion as being a fundamentalist"

I hereby correct you, I did no such thing, and did not mention fundamentalism.

"to say religion has not produced a single novel or new idea,totally ignores the massive contributions in regards to:philosophy,math,astrology,physics.the list is pretty extensive."

Extensive, huh? I'd like to see that list, in fact, enlighten me, and mention just ONE idea that was actually helped along by religion? Do you mean any idea that comes from a person defined as religious in any way? Can you show, in no uncertain terms, that it was the persons religious beliefs that helped solve a particular problem?

The closest I can think of is someone like Mendel, a monk, because his monastary allowed him to spend lots of time growing and studying pea-plants. But you can hardly call it a result of religious studies. If anything, Mendel must have skipped some biblereading to count all his peas.

What I'm talking about is when a proper good idea or concept has emerged from studying or following religious scripture or teaching.

Neil deGrasse Tyson - "Do You Believe in God?"

enoch says...

@BicycleRepairMan
i do not understand what you are arguing against.
you could have stuck with "no" and that would have sufficed,but you went off on a tirade about religion that had very little to do with what NDT was attempting to convey.

simply put:keep science and religion distinctively separate.that you could BE a scientist and still be a religious person.

he didnt get into the details because (and i am assuming here) he is full aware of the complexities of ones personal beliefs,religion being only a single facet.

to say religion has not produced a single novel or new idea,totally ignores the massive contributions in regards to:philosophy,math,astrology,physics.the list is pretty extensive.

you appear,and please correct me if i am wrong,to pigeon hole anybody who claims a religion as being a fundamentalist.this is not only staggeringly inaccurate but reveals a massive lack of understanding.

which is why NDT didnt even mention the fundamentalist,because the chances of a fundamentalist being a scientist hovers around 0%.

so why are you making an argument against fundamentalism when NDT did not even proceed from that assertion?

why do you care if a scientist also happens to hold a religious or spiritual philosophy?
are you suggesting that a scientist who DOES hold to these philosophies can no longer function properly as a scientist?

has it ever occurred to you that an intelligent person may hold a religious philosophy and keep that philosophy separate from their work?

or considered that a religious person may actually view their work as the continuing study of god/creator/universal consciousness? that by unraveling the mysteries of the known physical universe is their way of revealing god?there is a certain poetry to seeking and attempting to understand the mysteries of the universe.

i am totally with you in regards to fundamentalism,which brings a stagnation to the inquisitive mind and hampers the desire to know and seek those answers.the fundamentalist externalizes those questions in the form of scripture and in the process..stops asking the questions.

but to suggest that anybody who adheres to a religious or spiritual philosophy is somehow a fundamentalist,and therefore unworthy of consideration,is just plain inaccurate.

Conservative Christian mom attempts to disprove evolution

ChaosEngine says...

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence?
Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?
You should read your own links.
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".
And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power.
Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.
Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

It may be that in the future that someone disproves evolution. But if they do, it will be through science, not creationist bollocks.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?
I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

I also don't study astrology, homeopathy, tarot cards, voodoo or crystal therapy because they are all long since proven to be complete bollocks.

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

shinyblurry said:

more stuff

professor cambell-nutrition can prevent and cure cancer

ChaosEngine says...

"Woo" is a pejorative term for any pseudoscientific nonsense.

It can include but is not limited to:
Homeopathy, chiropractics, reki, creationism, crystals, cupping, dietary supplements, chromotherapy, aromatherapy, acupuncture, astrology, reflexology, yetis, unicorns, fairies, Angels, prayer and pretty much everything Deepak Chopra says

Sniper007 said:

I'm flattered to silence.

I watched the whole video with my entire family. Thank you.

So is this what "woo" is? I never heard that term before Mr. Cancer Wins used it.

IQ quiz for idiots

Jinx says...

You don't share IQ tests wit your social media buddies if you get an unflattering result.

Likewise, you don't keep reading your astrology prediction if it always tells you that you are going to die eventually and nothing really matters.

Is the Universe an Accident?

A10anis says...

You have NO argument. Occam was a 14th century monk and his premise was "keep things simple." Well the idea of god is truly simple. Simple enough for the weak, unintelligent, brain washed and deluded to understand. Look my friend, it is a free world and you can choose to believe in any nonsense you want to - many do. All that is required is that you keep your bronze-age myths out of schools, politics, and to yourself. Actually religion does have a place in schools, in the history class, along with the other "faiths" that were dumped the more intelligent we got. Religion, like alchemy and astrology are interesting only in historic terms. But, I know I waste my time so, as I said, believe what you wish. and I hope you enjoy the chains of your divine dictator.

shinyblurry said:

My argument is sound, logically, and if it were unsound it would be very easy to point out what the flaw is. I'll elaborate further:

Occams razors states that the theory with the least number of assumptions balanced against its explanatory power should be preferred to an argument with more assumptions and less explanatory power. The question is how do we explain the apparent fine-tuning in the Universe, a "goldilocks zone" for life. Scientists propose the multiverse theory which explains the favorable conditions as just being lucky, in that there are innumerable Universes and we just happen to be in the one that is very favorable for life. The problem with the theory is manifold; one, that is no observable evidence for the theory, and no way to test the theory. Two, it raises more questions than it answers because the mechanism that generates all of the Universes is even more finely tuned than the Universe itself, how did it get there, etc. It simply pushes back the problem another step. Eventually you must get to the point where a miracle occurs..ie, something came from nothing, or an eternal something which is infinitely fine tuned. According to Occams razor, the theory of an eternal Creator of the Universe should be preferred over *multiple* unobserved universes, that the fine tuning we observe isn't just apparent, but actual.

When you ask, why did God not do it "sooner", you do realize that you are making a temporal reference point? The bible says God "began" to do something because we are temporal beings and we think in terms of beginnings and endings, but we have no idea what that looks like in eternity. If your problem is simply with something being eternal, then maybe you haven't thought about the consequences of there not being anything eternal. You have to ask yourself the question, why is there something rather than nothing? You are facing two absurdities in this case; either an infinite regress of causes, or something coming from nothing. There has to be something eternal otherwise you are left with positing logically impossible outcomes. So, if there is something eternal, and whatever it is must be infinitely fine-tuned, and it ultimately created this Universe, you might as well call it God because it already possesses many of His attributes. Whichever way you turn, you are facing the Almighty.

The bible tells us why God didn't need to create light first:

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, even the Lamb.
Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

You should ask yourself, why do you object to the possibility of a Creator? Are your arguments just excuses to cover up the plain facts that have already been revealed to you by God, and the expression of your desire not to be accountable to Him? Something to think about..

What Systema looks like once you've reached a certain level

Velocity5 says...

This video is self-deception, same as Aikido and every other martial arts scam.

Prove these techniques in an MMA match or GTFO.

Stop putting astrology nonsense out into the world.

Racism Is Way Better Than Astrology - Dara Ó Briain

swedishfriend says...

This is dumb. Pure dumb. History does exist and things do happen in waves and interference patterns through time. There absolutely should be patterns to what genetics show up when. If we base our lives on the sun and stars (which we do) then patterns of human behavior and genetic expression will form peaks and valleys in rhythm with the sun and stars. I don't know that astrology is a good way to recognize those patterns but the meat of the idea is completely ignored in this video.

Racism Is Way Better Than Astrology - Dara Ó Briain

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Dara O Briain, Racism, Astrology, Comedy' to 'Dara O Briain, Racism, Astrology, Comedy, craic dealer' - edited by xxovercastxx



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon